Hi, On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 09:31:49AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: > >>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: > >>> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 06:53:47PM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: > >>> >> This adds av_warn_unused_result whenever it is relevant. > >>> >> > >>> >> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> > >>> >> --- > >>> >> libavfilter/buffersrc.h | 3 +++ > >>> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>> >> > >>> >> diff --git a/libavfilter/buffersrc.h b/libavfilter/buffersrc.h > >>> >> index cd3d95f..847c093 100644 > >>> >> --- a/libavfilter/buffersrc.h > >>> >> +++ b/libavfilter/buffersrc.h > >>> >> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ unsigned > av_buffersrc_get_nb_failed_requests(AVFilterContext *buffer_src); > >>> >> * This function is equivalent to av_buffersrc_add_frame_flags() > with the > >>> >> * AV_BUFFERSRC_FLAG_KEEP_REF flag. > >>> >> */ > >>> >> +av_warn_unused_result > >>> >> int av_buffersrc_write_frame(AVFilterContext *ctx, const AVFrame > *frame); > >>> >> > >>> >> /** > >>> >> @@ -98,6 +99,7 @@ int av_buffersrc_write_frame(AVFilterContext > *ctx, const AVFrame *frame); > >>> >> * This function is equivalent to av_buffersrc_add_frame_flags() > without the > >>> >> * AV_BUFFERSRC_FLAG_KEEP_REF flag. > >>> >> */ > >>> >> +av_warn_unused_result > >>> >> int av_buffersrc_add_frame(AVFilterContext *ctx, AVFrame *frame); > >>> >> > >>> >> /** > >>> >> @@ -115,6 +117,7 @@ int av_buffersrc_add_frame(AVFilterContext > *ctx, AVFrame *frame); > >>> >> * @return >= 0 in case of success, a negative AVERROR > code > >>> >> * in case of failure > >>> >> */ > >>> >> +av_warn_unused_result > >>> >> int av_buffersrc_add_frame_flags(AVFilterContext *buffer_src, > >>> >> AVFrame *frame, int flags); > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > Aren't you just supposed to (void)-prefix the call in the caller > when you > >>> > explicitly don't care about the result? > >>> > > >>> > These functions certainly looks like you actually want to check for > the > >>> > result most of the time. > >>> > >>> Exactly - this addition to the declaration in the header will trigger > >>> a warning whenever this function is used without obtaining the return > >>> value. > >>> > >> > >> Oh, my bad, I misunderstood, sounds indeed saner than what I had in > mind. > >> > >> Thanks for the clarification. > > > > By the way, I highly encourage all developers to slowly start adding > > this to relevant headers, at least in the things they respectively > > maintain. For instance, a bunch of possible bugs/robustness issues > > will be fixed. Here is one I noticed today: by applying to > > init_get_bits8, a few warnings get triggered. There have been commits > > from Michael addressing some CID's related to this - this will ensure > > a complete weeding out of that particular issue. > > ping Yes, sorry, pushed. Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
